|
neilh
|
|
« on: 12/13/2010 10:38 PM » |
|
Thought this was newsworthy enough to branch out a new thread for... Proposals for CDev-2 are due today.
I imagine that we will hear more about certain of the proposals (by the companies themselves) in the next few weeks. For example, I am curious to find out who Virgin Galactic has teamed up with.
here is your answer..Orbital
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101213-orbital-virgin-ccdev2-bid.html
Woah!
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 12/13/2010 10:38 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Space Pete
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 12/13/2010 10:55 PM » |
|
I guess this explains Orbital's recent interest in the X-34.
|
|
|
|
vt_hokie
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 12/13/2010 10:57 PM » |
|
Wow, interesting!
|
|
|
|
mr. mark
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 12/13/2010 11:18 PM » |
|
This may be a game changer. Spacex may have to start selling Dragon as not only an LEO but also BEO vehicle to hedge their bets. The field is getting crowded and not everyone will be a winner. Companies with capsules (Spacex, Boeing, LM) would do best to show BEO capabilty. How this also affects Dreamchaser marketing is interesting. Is there a need for 2 lifting, winged vehicles?
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 12/14/2010 12:13 AM » |
|
Actually for CCDev-2, there could be a lot of winners. But for the follow-on program (the commercial crew development program or CCDP), a down-selection will likely have to be made.
I wonder if this means that Orbital is giving up on its crewed capsule proposal.
|
|
|
|
HMXHMX
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 12/14/2010 12:21 AM » |
|
This may be a game changer. Spacex may have to start selling Dragon as not only an LEO but also BEO vehicle to hedge their bets. The field is getting crowded and not everyone will be a winner. Companies with capsules (Spacex, Boeing, LM) would do best to show BEO capabilty. How this also affects Dreamchaser marketing is interesting. Is there a need for 2 lifting, winged vehicles?
Development cost is the key issue. Previously SNC has said DC would cost $800M to develop (from my memory). Orbital has stated a range of $2.5B and $3B in public remarks in 2009, but presumably that for for a capsule-type spacecraft. I don't see this as game-changing from a competitive sense, but perhaps perception-changing.
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 12/14/2010 01:18 AM » |
|
Very interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept?
This will also require a new (or imported) liquid upper stage for the Taurus II, one assumes.
|
|
|
|
jabe
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 12/14/2010 01:38 AM » |
|
This will also require a new (or imported) liquid upper stage for the Taurus II, one assumes.
That was going to be my question. I'm not sure I would want to be riding a a single solid motor on the way to space  jb
|
|
|
|
corrodedNut
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 12/14/2010 01:44 AM » |
|
This will also require a new (or imported) liquid upper stage for the Taurus II, one assumes.
It's Atlas V not Taurus II.
|
|
|
|
Malderi
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 12/14/2010 01:50 AM » |
|
I think it's pretty interesting that Orbital is not going for a system that can use some Cygnus heritage and the Taurus II launch vehicle. Presumably, they could've designed some capsule that uses a Cygnus-like SM and Taurus II, but decided that either:
1) It'd be too difficult to man-rate/modify their own systems, or
2) it wouldn't provide a good business case, either due to increased costs on those systems or because they're betting an innovative winged vehicle would be more likely to win the downselects.
Interesting, either way.
|
|
|
|
mmeijeri
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 12/14/2010 01:57 AM » |
|
Who says there is no Cygnus heritage? I would expect them to use Cygnus heritage for propulsion and avionics.
|
|
|
|
Namechange User
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 12/14/2010 02:07 AM » |
|
I have no direct insight into Orbital's thinking with respect to business case but CCDev is not soley about eventual transport to ISS. If that is all the companies are thinking about - and not working with others such as Bigelow, Virgin, have their own plans, etc - I would think they will not be likely candidates to actually get money from NASA.
In doing these proposals, it may make practical sense to diversify their own business capabilities - but build on experience with certain systems - to meet the partners expectations. It also may make financial sense to not have to provide every element themselves (and instead can be a customer with, for example, the launch vehicle) allowing them to focus limited resources and deliver to market that much quicker.
Remember this is supposed to be partially about building an industry that can exist seperately and in parallel to NASA initiatives.
|
|
|
|
jongoff
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 12/14/2010 02:30 AM » |
|
I have no direct insight into Orbital's thinking with respect to business case but CCDev is not soley about eventual transport to ISS. If that is all the companies are thinking about - and not working with others such as Bigelow, Virgin, have their own plans, etc - I would think they will not be likely candidates to actually get money from NASA.
In doing these proposals, it may make practical sense to diversify their own business capabilities - but build on experience with certain systems - to meet the partners expectations. It also may make financial sense to not have to provide every element themselves (and instead can be a customer with, for example, the launch vehicle) allowing them to focus limited resources and deliver to market that much quicker.
Remember this is supposed to be partially about building an industry that can exist seperately and in parallel to NASA initiatives.
Well put OV. ~Jon
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 12/14/2010 02:55 AM » |
|
I have no direct insight into Orbital's thinking with respect to business case but CCDev is not soley about eventual transport to ISS. If that is all the companies are thinking about - and not working with others such as Bigelow, Virgin, have their own plans, etc - I would think they will not be likely candidates to actually get money from NASA.
In doing these proposals, it may make practical sense to diversify their own business capabilities - but build on experience with certain systems - to meet the partners expectations. It also may make financial sense to not have to provide every element themselves (and instead can be a customer with, for example, the launch vehicle) allowing them to focus limited resources and deliver to market that much quicker.
Remember this is supposed to be partially about building an industry that can exist seperately and in parallel to NASA initiatives.
Well put OV.
~Jon
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
vt_hokie
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 12/14/2010 03:10 AM » |
|
Very interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept?
It will be interesting to see. Recall that Orbital had a conceptual design for a lifting body craft back in the OSP days, though I don't know far along into the design process they were. It reminded me of the canceled European Hermes spaceplane. Here it is shown with the Delta IV heavy: http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SpcShtls/SpacePlane/OrbitalSpacePlaneLaunch600x450.jpg
|
|
|
|
